If Alito can state that he felt Plessy was unconstitutional and

[WI_DEM]

the case which Holmes wrote the opinion of regarding sterilizaton of "imbeciles" why can't he state whether he thinks that Roe is unconstitutional? there is an inconsistency in his answers which need to be addressed.

[Avalux]

1. His excuse for no comment on Roe:

Because there's currently abortion cases before the SC and other courts. Wouldn't be prudent. :eyes:

[jobycom]

3. I knew he'd say that. And it's wrong, because there are still

segregation issues before the courts, too. The whole dispute over school financing is basically a segregation/equality debate. And that still winds up before the Supreme Court from time to time.

[jobycom]

2. Given that issues of school segregation do still appear in court

He can't even claim that Plessy is purely historical while Roe is still an issue he could be forced to rule on.

He should be rejected by Dems and Repubs because his record shows one thing and his answers another. He is lying to them, and hiding his true identity, and both parties should reject that. He does not respect the Senate confirmation hearings, and they are mandated by the Constitution. That says all we need to know about his opinion of the Constitution. It is subordinate to his personal beliefs.

[Inland]

4. Because Roe might be overturned.

We can only ask him about matters that nobody gives a shit about because they are dead and buried. Ask him about the case deciding the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland, but nothign else. Unless you are a rightie or admin official. Then he'll spill his guts.